To: Platt & Glen
Platt,
you will agree that giving up your own life (which has its value, its
duties, its responsibilities, and its unique and valuable path to go) to go
distribute condoms in South Africa is not an easy thing even if you think
it's worthy. None of us has infinite time and infinite resources to do
everything s/he thinks would be good. If you are willing to let me know
that I'm not doing what I should, thanks for your suggestion, but it's not
that easy. In a way, I am pretty sure that my humanitarianism *is* hollow,
like any belief on earth is (yours included). We are all talking about
things that we never experienced; I don't think you spent much time in
South Africa handing out condoms, or that Glen has ever fought in a civil
war against an african dictatorship. St. Francis, Christ, Buddha, ... these
are people whose humaniatarianism was less hollow, in fact (although their
views were hollow in a way, too, since they were humans). So your point
seems to be that either you are St. Francis, and willing to give your life
to the poor, or you should be a cynical (i.e., should not believe human
life is sacred to you). So, only cynicals have the right to live a life of
their own... should I become a cynical... no wait... even mock
humanitarians have a life of their own! Well, then I will be a mock
humanitarian... I personally would prefer living in a world of
humanitarians whose views are too hollow to sacrifice their own lives for
an altruistic mission, but will nevertheless *try* to live their common
lives consistently with humanitarians ideals, than to live in a world of
deep-thinking cynicals.
Glen,
your attitude towards civil war is quite interesting for a MOQ follower.
What you maybe do not consider is that deciding when the conditions hold
that make civil war (or just war) moral is not clear cut, as this is always
judged from a particular point of view that may well differ from yours. In
particular, if people in the third world got aware that they are oppressed
by the west (be it true or not), you are saying: "embrace your guns and
kill us". You should also be supporting terrorism, which is what you can do
if you want to fight an overly stronger enemy: or are you suggesting that,
if Nigerians thought Americans are helping in their oppression, they should
fight them face to face in a honorable military war (i.e., do mass
suicide)? So terrorists would probably feel very comfortable in your
framework. But those who would feel more comfortable with such a framework
are the oppressors, freed from all of their responsibilities. I do *agree*
that it would be moral for Nigerians to fight for their rights (and even
more so to find a way to fight peacefully) but this doesn't make it any
more moral for someone to put them in the condition to *have* to fight for
their rights. I hope the MOQ *cannot* be twisted to social darwinism; I
hope the MOQ is *not* thin air.
Pirsig has every right to condemn self-proclaimed humanitarians on the
basis that they are mock humanitarians, albeit it still seems an extreme
generalizations to say that no one is a real humanitarian with the
exceptions mentioned above (Christ, etc.). The opposite of being a mock
humanitarian is not criticizing those who take the oppressed' side (even in
an electronic discussion), not to support war and violence as a means of
solving problems, and declaring that those who do not turn to violence are
the cause of their own problems.
A
P.S.: As usual, I also agree with Marco. There was no need to repeat his
arguments, but they would be in my post if they weren't in his.
Platt Holden ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea:
>
> What I meant was that you should go to Africa to distribute condoms to
> prevent AIDS and the subsequent deaths from that behaviorial disease, not
> to prevent children from being born into misery. Since you value human
> life above all else, it seems you should be doing that or something llike
> that. Otherwise, your words seem hollow to me. Most humantarians talk a
> good game, but rarely practice what they preach. Pirsig railed against
> Rigel in Chapter 7 of LIla:
>
> "The ones who go posing as moralists are the worst. Cost-free morals.
> Full of great ways for others to improve without any expense to
> themselves. There's an ego thing in there, too.They use the morals to
> make someone else look inferior and that way look better themselves."
>
> Maybe I've misinterpreted your meaning, or taken it out of context. But
> when someone says "I value human life above all else, " or "Life is
> sacred," I usually find that they don't back up their words with
> corresponding action. That's what Pirsig meant by "cost-free morals."
>
> Platt
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
